“This is a preliminary study and right now there is nothing that suggests what these particles may do in the environment,” said Andrew Maynard, chief science advisor for the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. “But this is how science works, we first look at the impact of these particles in a pristine environment and then test them out in the real world.”
The lab findings do support a trend of uncertainty growing around nanoparticles in consumer products.
“We have a real range of products that strike me as really concerning because of the gap between what we know and what I would like to know,” said Sonya Lunder, senior analyst at the Environmental Working Group.
Nanotechnology has been hailed for its benefits because of the potential ability to create drugs that could cure cancer and radiation poisoning, make miniature pollutant filters resulting in healthier air and even produce better tasting food. Excitement over these benefits has led to corporations heavily investing in the technology for their products. However, the same properties that allow nanotechnology to be valuable give it the potential to cause unforeseen consequences for ecological and human health.
Prior research has shown mice injected with carbon nanotubes developed biological damage similar to asbestos inhalation. A 2005 study in Environmental Science and Technology showed that zinc oxide particles were toxic to human lung cells.
Manipulated to 1/100,000 the width of a human hair, nanoparticles can act differently when operating at the quantum level.
“When you make something at the nanoscale it has the ability to get to places that larger material is incapable of getting to, such as cells, and creates greater surface area so you are increasing the ability to cause harm,” Maynard said.
In addition, said Maynard, some materials create new chemical properties.
Adding to the confusion over nanotechnology is the lack of scientific data on many of the particles now found in products.
“Each nanoparticle its own characteristics and we need to start getting a handle on these things and how they might interact with the environment,” Gruden said.
Nevertheless, Maynard said studies finding potential hazards with nanoparticles are not likely to keep them out of products.
“Rather than slowing down the use of these materials, really the push will be to increase the level of knowledge to handle them safely,” he said.
This article originally ran at Environmental Health News, a news source published by Environmental Health Sciences, a nonprofit media company.
See what we're tweeting about
5 Comments
Add CommentSo what is an environmentally concerned person supposed to do in terms of sunscreen choices? My dermatologist tells me that sunscreens with physical blocks (such as zinc and titanium) are most effective and healthier choices than the screens which rely on other commonly used active ingredients.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut I don't want to be wiping out bacterai that are better left alone.
Some advice would be welcome.
I thought a bacteriacide was a good thing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe best way to approach sunscreen use is to find a non-nanoparticle (micronized is ok!) zinc oxide formula that is completely free of petrochemical active ingredients. An excellent choice is Green Screen Organic Sunscreen. Read the following if you want to learn more about what to look for in safe sunscreens: http://www.kabanaskincare.com/sunscreen_safety_criteria.htm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article shows NPs to act as significant bactericides in water. Recent theoretical arguments give the reason for the bactericidal action of NPs to the emission of EM radiation at low UV levels. The UV emission occurs because collisions of solvent molecules transfer thermal kT energy to the NP that cannot be conserved by an increase in temperature, and therefore conservation proceeds by the emission of EM radiation at the confinement frequency of the NP, usually beyond the UV. The damaging NPs have diameters <100 nm. The UV is an excellent bactericide, but there is a downside. Experimental data over the past decade support the theoretical arguments that NPs induce DNA damage that may lead to cancer. The US EPA should ban the use of <100 nm NPs from commercial products for human consumption. See URL: www.nanoqed.org at link NP induced DNA damage
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article shows NPs to act as significant bactericides in water. Recent theoretical arguments give the reason for the bactericidal action of NPs to the emission of EM radiation at low UV levels. The UV emission occurs because collisions of solvent molecules transfer thermal kT energy to the NP that cannot be conserved by an increase in temperature, and therefore conservation proceeds by the emission of EM radiation at the confinement frequency of the NP, usually beyond the UV. The damaging NPs have diameters <100 nm. The UV is an excellent bactericide, but there is a downside. Experimental data over the past decade support the theoretical arguments that NPs induce DNA damage that may lead to cancer. The US EPA should ban the use of <100 nm NPs from commercial products for human consumption. See URL: www.nanoqed.org at link “NP induced DNA damage”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this